<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (12) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84885</link>
    <description>Excise exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was examined in relation to steam supplied to a recipient unit alleged not to be a factory under Section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The record indicated that the recipient unit manufactured excisable goods and was licensed by the excise authorities, so the factual basis stated in the notice for denying exemption was not established. Denial of exemption also could not be sustained on grounds outside the show cause notice, including alleged non-compliance with Chapter X procedure and the existence of separate factories. The exemption dispute was therefore resolved in favour of the assessee on the pleaded grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:05:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84885</link>
      <description>Excise exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was examined in relation to steam supplied to a recipient unit alleged not to be a factory under Section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The record indicated that the recipient unit manufactured excisable goods and was licensed by the excise authorities, so the factual basis stated in the notice for denying exemption was not established. Denial of exemption also could not be sustained on grounds outside the show cause notice, including alleged non-compliance with Chapter X procedure and the existence of separate factories. The exemption dispute was therefore resolved in favour of the assessee on the pleaded grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>